From Drop Out to Push Out in Online Learning

by | Dec 9, 2010 | Blog, edReformer

 

This post originally appeared on edReformer, a community of advocates, entrepreneurs, educators, policy makers, philanthropists and investors seeking to promote excellence and equity in education through innovatation.  edRefomer serves as a catalyst for innovation in education by encouraging and  promoting public and private investment in new learning tools, schools, and platforms. View Original >

 

“Online classes are not for all students.” This comment quickly incites debate in the online education community and it’s all based in real life situations. It’s true, not all students have been successful in the online classroom. Some of them lack the time management skills or the independent motivation to get work done efficiently. Some have technology skills that need improvement. However, these are all excuses consistently used to create a push-out culture for online education.

David R. Dupper has many publications that reframe issues in school in terms of push-out instead of drop-out. Drop-out implies fault of the student, instead of push-out. By adopting the term “push-out” the onus is the many factors that contribute to student success – everything from teachers to curriculum. A recently published articleshows many views on why online classes are not for everyone. In fact, one interviewer claims “If a student is independent, disciplined or just busy with school, work, or both, an online course might be the best option for that individual.” Another claims “Read the assignment, do what you have to do and get it done. I recommend it if that’s the way you like to learn” These statements bother me.

These are examples of statements that foster a “drop-out” framework rather than a “push-out” framework.

Innovators are trying new ways of structuring courses, from gaming-based to project based. They are not simply the “read and do that assignment” stereotype. It is true that many courses are structure this way, and so should serve as a warning. In fact, this assumption no doubt came out of real experience of being exposed to the same type of course framework and pedagogical model. We need to make sure not to structure all online courses in the same pedagogical models. Game based courses are starting to be created, as done by Florida Virtual School in their Conspiracy Code American History Course.  Many courses are trying PBL models for their learning, as well as focus on 21st century skills such as collaboration and presentation. Innovative course design needs to continue, and the assumption that all online courses are the same should be mitigated.

We have the opportunity to avoid the replication of a broken system where the culture of “read and do” exist. We must take ownership of the walls that exist for students and seek to find ways to climb. Students should not adjust to the educational system.  Instead the online education system should adjust to its students.

Related articles

Supporting Student Voice and Choice Leads to Equity

by | Dec 6, 2010 | Blog, edReformer

 

This post originally appeared on edReformer, a community of advocates, entrepreneurs, educators, policy makers, philanthropists and investors seeking to promote excellence and equity in education through innovatation.  edRefomer serves as a catalyst for innovation in education by encouraging and  promoting public and private investment in new learning tools, schools, and platforms. View Original >

 

Recently, an article in Educational Leadership provided a window into student ownership in the Project Based Learning methodology. In it John Larmer and John R Mergendoller of the Buck Institute for Education point out that there is one essential that moves us towards more student ownership and engagement for all students: Student Voice and Choice. In it a teacher explains what it looks like from her perspective:

“Once her students’ interest was piqued by a challenging question, Ms. McIntyre explained the requirements for the “Don’t Close the Beach” project, which included an individually written paper, an oral presentation of students’ work accompanied by media technology, and a product of students’ choice created by teams. Students chose to develop media kits, public service announcements, web pages, brochures, and letters to government and industry officials, among other products.”

Educators have continually turned to Howard Gardner and his theory on multiple intelligences as means of providing equity for all students. They’ve focused on assessments and curriculum that focuses on the student’s personal tastes and abilities. A teacher might provide an assessment product that would be artistic in nature and at the same time hold students accountable for content standards and learning.

However, these have never quite ensured equity in terms of assessment of student learning. Why? Because ultimately it is teacher-directed. The teacher is still choosing the method in which students display their learning, even though they may have provided an option that will ensure certain students will flourish. If we want true student construction of knowledge then we must allow for more student voice and choice in their learning. Why shouldn’t it be in the assessment?

Giving student’s the autonomy to choose their learning product and the opportunity and means to create that product is just one way Student Voice and Choice in PBL leads to student ownership and engagement. Student Voice and Choice leads to options that foster technology literacy, oral communication and creativity — excellent 21st century skills.

In addition, the teacher had a traditional paper — most likely to ensure individual written construction of knowledge — to fulfill requirements of the traditional education system, which is still in force. There is still control, but there is also student ownership. How can the teacher manage this type of assessment? Because the teacher knows exactly what she is assessing. She can assess the same content standards in a variety of formats produced by the students. Equity is present because students are given a variety of products to choose from that address multiple ways of knowing, and ultimately they are engaged.

Related articles